My understanding is that in theory EU Regulation 261/2004 applies to bookings leaving the EU through to the final destination, including domestic connections in a non-EU country. For example, a United flight from Amsterdam to Dallas via Chicago, where a delay in Chicago resulted in a 3 hour delay in arriving in Dallas.
In practice I've never gotten an airline to agree.
I could not use my Google Voice number (that I've had since Grand Central) for most companies that only do SMS 2FA until it became my Google Fi number. Then I guess some flag got set in the database they check against.
>I could not use my Google Voice number (that I've had since Grand Central) for most companies that only do SMS 2FA until it became my Google Fi number. Then I guess some flag got set in the database they check against.
I was wondering about that, because I can't get google voice because I have google fi, so clearly it's using the same bank of numbers, but maybe once they are fi, they are ported to T-mobile instead of their own CLEC.
Yeah, I think that restriction was due to that extremely strange way of using Hangouts (remember that?) as a possible backend for both Google Voice and Google Fi text messages.
I just reinstalled Gentoo this past weekend on an IBM ThinkPad with a Pentium 4/M and 256MiB of RAM, and even there it's probably "supported" not "Supported (green checkmark emoji)".
Most of Linux worked, to it's credit, though I needed to tweak libata for some IDE controller quirks presumably lost in the PATA driver transition in 2.6.20. VTs worked fine and KMSCON worked well, once I loaded the radeonfb driver in initrd.
Where it noticibly falls apart is trying to being up X11, as the driver stack in X11 and Mesa have bitrotten (and in Mesa's case, removed, and no one is looking at mesa-amber from what I understand). A lightweight tiling manager and urxvt was enough for it to crash the whole system.
It was my first time installing NetBSD, but it only took a few minutes. Some bits I felt were worded a bit strange, particularly around partitioning. It seemed like one page was using CHS while others used LBA.
In any case, X worked reasonably well; 31 fps in glxgears with llvmpipe. Still a bit too slow for something like alacritty, but at least using herbstluftwm wasn't painful.
It's great this is finally seeing some love! There seems to be some limitations in Firefox 138 that leaves it feeling like it's landed a bit short:
- Missing the context menu "Open in <profile>" on URLs or pages. There's often links I want to open in different profile, and I've missed this option from Chrome.
- Existing about:profile profiles aren't importable, other than the initial profile. It looks like adding other profiles manually to the "Profiles" table of the new sqlite database in the "Profile Groups" directory works to add it to the list, but it's still somewhat broken.
- Not documented how to open links from other applications in specific profiles. Passing the profile name (obtained from about:support) to "-P" no longer works, but passing the full path to the profile to "--profile" does. It would be nice to pass just the friendly profile name.
Well, at least it's a start. It can only get better. The important bit was getting the new profile management skeleton in a stable shape. Hopefully everything else will follow. It's only a bit infuriating that they do gradual rollout :-(
In my four years of US high school Spanish in South Florida, I don't recall a single time we read complete stories or newspaper articles. It was entirely grammar and vocabulary in isolation. When there was speaking exercises the teachers did not make an effort to have the native speakers speak with the non-native speakers.
The only thing close to what I'd now call "Compelling Comprehensive Input" that I recall is a single week where we watched a Friends-style miniseries about an English speaker moving to Spain.
Why should the test process be sending physical letters (edit: in 2025)? Nothing in the GPLv2 requires a physical letter.
The address the OP sent a letter too has already been removed from the canonical version of the license (and was itself an unversioned change from the original address), and section 3 doesn't require a physical offer if the machine-readable source code is provided.
Some companies still do this mainly to make the GPL request process more annoying so fewer people do it. If you have to mail a letter with a check to cover shipping/handling and wait for the company to send you a CD-R with the code on it, fewer people will look at the code compared to if the company just put it on Github or something.
If the goal is to be annoying, sure make sure folks can jump through hoops. I just don't think in 2025 a company legitimately intending to satisfy the GPL requirements needs anything to do with physical mail, since they'll provide it online.
I stopped putting in requests for source code offers because I've had a 0% success rate.
Companies don't legitimately intend to satisfy the GPL requirements.
If you put in a source code request and get no reply you should try to contact the copyright holder or someone like the Software Freedom Conservancy or the EFF, because they are breaking the law. There was a case recently in Germany where a court forced a maker of home routers to give up not just their source code, but also the scripts to install modified software - as required by the license. (As I understand it there is no precedent in a civil law system, but it does mean at least one judge believes Tivoization of GPLv2 software is illegal)
Please let the Software Freedom Conservancy know about any companies that are still in violation of the GPL by not satisfying requests for source code.
I offer GPL source via physical address because I don't want to distribute it with the software and I think the GPL said you have to do it that way. I also provide an email address for convenience but without it being the official way so I don't really have to respond to those. In 10 years, I've had zero requests either way.
It's a 3rd part GPL program that I've modified and distribute with my proprietary software. The not wanting to is just because it's a bit of hassle putting together the files and information on how to compile it in a polished way. If nobody requests it, I can defer that work forever.
Most of the time the GPL request is a waste of time with no purpose other than annoy a company. You can download linux source code from many places, why do you want to get it from us?
There is a slight possibility we have a driver that you could get access to, but without the hardware it won't do you any good. Once in a while we have hacked the source to fix a bug, but if it isn't upstream it is because the fix would be accepted (often it causes other bugs that don't matter to use), and in any case if it isn't upstream, the kernel moves so fast you wouldn't be able to use it anyway.
There's actually a near-100% chance that the kernel on my device is not the upstream kernel. There's a near-100% chance that you have added some custom drivers or got them from your upstream. There's also a near-100% chance that you have written some scripts to install the kernel on the device, which you are required (at least one German judge thinks so) to share with me so that I can install a modified kernel on my device.
Again I see no purpose in doing things this way besides trying to minimize the amount of people who look at your GPL code for some reason. Isn't it more annoying for the company to make someone in customer support read paper letters, burn the GPL package onto a CD-R, and mail it than it is to simply host the GPL package for each product on a support site or Github or something and include a link in the product documentation?
There's definitely a purpose, it's to obfuscate usage of GPL software and dodgy linkage. There's no other reason for situations like hosting a binary download as a plain download on a website while getting the source requires mailing a check or money order to a UK address.
You only have to serve those requests if you distribute your changes yourself.
So presumably as a hardware company you'd be offering your hardware with your custom linux installed, and then people wanting to audit or hack the product they bought would request the code from you.
This relies on a court's interpretation. GPLv3 made it explicit that the user has to be provided with everything they need to install modified software. GPLv2 just says "scripts used to control installation" which can be easily interpreted to exclude private signing keys. And the LGPLv2 says when an executable statically links to the library the user must be able to produce a modified executable - nothing at all about being able to install that executable.
That is an overly obtuse interpretation. Real law doesn’t work that way. Get in front of a court and the bench judge will shut down that kind of analysis real fast. The intended interpretation is quite clear in context.
A few countries I'll be visiting this summer still sell International Reply Coupons. It might be interesting to pick some up and see how difficult it is to exchange them. Would a PostNL point even know what to do with one?
As a ham radio operator who still likes paper QSL cards, I’ve bought international reply coupons from Swiss Post because they still sell them and you can order them online (I live in Ireland but here they no longer sell them). Any postal service that is a member of the Universal Postal Union (nearly all of them are AFAICT) is obliged to accept them. They work in most places.
Hey, I'm KG8ORS. It's been aong time since I've sent a QSL card (and I've never received one), but it's where I first heard about IRCs.
I agree that UPU members are required to accept them. PostNL closed all of their post offices a few years ago in favor of contracting out to businesses, who may not be familiar with them.
It looks like Omniva (aka/fka Eesti Post) also ships worldwide and charges in Euro.
